12-09-2007, 01:57 AM
Hi Crow
I have to assume that you haven't read the whole post on rule 2. We are in agreement. I asked what you didn't agree with.
You say striving for impeccability is a fundamental precept of a warrior.
And rule 2 removes the emphasis from self-importance to saving energy which is impeccability.
I don't know the difference. I could define differences, but they'd be arbitrary and meaningless. I was thinking of posting something about it. What's the difference between arrogance, conceit and knowing? All these can mean something negative in different circles. Yet knowing could mean something positive too. Since it depends on which circle of agreement you're in, it's obvious that these are arbitrary descriptions and not facts about the world 'out there', which isn't so 'out there' for a warrior. People who know because they see can sound pretty arrogant, depending on where you listen from, ie. if you don't know and don't see and have faith in your thinking.
I'm not lying about my indifference. Dude, I'm one person here. Most people here, no - all the people I've spoken with don't think or act like me. So don't base the website on me if you feel I'm arrogant. Just talk to someone else. If you don't want to hear from me, I'll stop directing any posts to you. But if you want to leave because of me, I'll just laugh at your conviction over something you can't possibly know with certainty. I swear, if you leave, I'll laugh. I'm not as real/defined as you're believing me to be. You won't leave because of me. You'll leave because of your belief, and you'll call it me, and I'll laugh at your absolute conviction in your own ignorance. Not because I'm mean, but because it is funny. At least from my vantage point. That may sound like proof of arrogance to you. It's not. You can't prove arrogance. You can't prove any concept. That's why a warrior doesn't cling to them. Arrogance is a description of an action; not an action itself.
I deal with people every day who are stuck in their labels and I get it here too, even more strongly! What does that tell you?
But I don't expect them not to label. They haven't claimed to want to be free, or to be warriors. We'd expect more from people here. I agree. I just don't agree that I'm conceited. I posted facts with humor. If it's factual, it isn't personal. Or maybe it is. But I wouldn't care about personal as long as it's factual. It's the personal that alters the actual that is an obstacle, IMO. It's not the messenger but the message that can free or bind a man. My message is true. Does it matter who I am? Will anyone ever know who I am? You gotta drop that if you're serious about impeccability.
A warrior, clinging so tightly to the idea of being a warrior, isn't being a warrior. Clinging to anything can't be impeccability. It takes enormous amounts of energy to cling.
I guess if you have to cling to something, impeccability is a good choice. But be sure you're clinging to impeccability and not the idea of impeccability. That's what my post on self-importance is pointing at. That's what most things I talk about point at. Impeccability is not an idea. As long as it's an idea, there will be the counter idea of non-impeccability that you will struggle with. When impeccability ceases to be an idea, there won't be non-impeccability. The only thing unimpeccable about us is our ideas, our ideas of the world, our ideas of ourselves (from which self-importance stems)... remember that other post where DJ says the only thing that changes is one's idea of oneself?
It's hard for the mind to grasp, but DJ talks about it often in the books when he mentions thinking vs. acting. Thinking is the world of ideas. Acting is impeccability. You can think of non-impeccable acts, but you can't act them. The mind will argue that to no end (because the mind can only think), but it's true.
I have to assume that you haven't read the whole post on rule 2. We are in agreement. I asked what you didn't agree with.
You say striving for impeccability is a fundamental precept of a warrior.
And rule 2 removes the emphasis from self-importance to saving energy which is impeccability.
I don't know the difference. I could define differences, but they'd be arbitrary and meaningless. I was thinking of posting something about it. What's the difference between arrogance, conceit and knowing? All these can mean something negative in different circles. Yet knowing could mean something positive too. Since it depends on which circle of agreement you're in, it's obvious that these are arbitrary descriptions and not facts about the world 'out there', which isn't so 'out there' for a warrior. People who know because they see can sound pretty arrogant, depending on where you listen from, ie. if you don't know and don't see and have faith in your thinking.
I'm not lying about my indifference. Dude, I'm one person here. Most people here, no - all the people I've spoken with don't think or act like me. So don't base the website on me if you feel I'm arrogant. Just talk to someone else. If you don't want to hear from me, I'll stop directing any posts to you. But if you want to leave because of me, I'll just laugh at your conviction over something you can't possibly know with certainty. I swear, if you leave, I'll laugh. I'm not as real/defined as you're believing me to be. You won't leave because of me. You'll leave because of your belief, and you'll call it me, and I'll laugh at your absolute conviction in your own ignorance. Not because I'm mean, but because it is funny. At least from my vantage point. That may sound like proof of arrogance to you. It's not. You can't prove arrogance. You can't prove any concept. That's why a warrior doesn't cling to them. Arrogance is a description of an action; not an action itself.
I deal with people every day who are stuck in their labels and I get it here too, even more strongly! What does that tell you?
But I don't expect them not to label. They haven't claimed to want to be free, or to be warriors. We'd expect more from people here. I agree. I just don't agree that I'm conceited. I posted facts with humor. If it's factual, it isn't personal. Or maybe it is. But I wouldn't care about personal as long as it's factual. It's the personal that alters the actual that is an obstacle, IMO. It's not the messenger but the message that can free or bind a man. My message is true. Does it matter who I am? Will anyone ever know who I am? You gotta drop that if you're serious about impeccability.
A warrior, clinging so tightly to the idea of being a warrior, isn't being a warrior. Clinging to anything can't be impeccability. It takes enormous amounts of energy to cling.
I guess if you have to cling to something, impeccability is a good choice. But be sure you're clinging to impeccability and not the idea of impeccability. That's what my post on self-importance is pointing at. That's what most things I talk about point at. Impeccability is not an idea. As long as it's an idea, there will be the counter idea of non-impeccability that you will struggle with. When impeccability ceases to be an idea, there won't be non-impeccability. The only thing unimpeccable about us is our ideas, our ideas of the world, our ideas of ourselves (from which self-importance stems)... remember that other post where DJ says the only thing that changes is one's idea of oneself?
It's hard for the mind to grasp, but DJ talks about it often in the books when he mentions thinking vs. acting. Thinking is the world of ideas. Acting is impeccability. You can think of non-impeccable acts, but you can't act them. The mind will argue that to no end (because the mind can only think), but it's true.